The Illusion of Expertise?

[pornosonic1975]

I was just reading a thread on the 'It Happened To Me' section and suddenly I'm questioning the nature of 'expertise'. Apologies if this is in the wrong section, however I didn't know where else to put it. I'm aware that people who have certain academic or vocational qualifications may be granted the kudos of 'expertise' in a certain field, such as economists or architects, however if they make a serious mistake - are they no longer considered experts? Looking at various 'experts' who have given evidence in court only for it later to be proved totally wrong after somebody has spent years in prison, you have to wonder about the nature of 'expertise' don't you?

I mean, at what point is someone deemed an 'expert'? Is there a panel? or are they self appointed? Or does somebody simply declare them to be an 'expert' one day and so that is what they are forever more without question or further examination?

Thinking about politics for example; we vote for politicians because, I assume, we feel that they are 'experts' in representing people and ultimately, in running the country, however, they frequently make serious mistakes and often show signs of extreme naivety, incompetence and foolishness. Senior Police officers must have some kind of 'expertise' in the law to pass all their exams, yet are put in roles as managers where they clearly have no competance, yet are still widely regarded as 'experts' based on their original 'expertise', which in some cases is also questionable. Also, in the case of teachers - whilst most teachers are very good and highly dedicated professionals, I recall being told a number of 'facts' by my teachers at school regarding 'their' subject which in later life I have discovered to be totally incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. So are teachers, university lecturers or other adademics 'experts', or people who simply disseminate information? Leftist lawyers and people such as Shami Chakrabati are often described in the press as 'Human rights experts', however they appear to be regularly taken in by the most ridiculous tales of woe imaginable and yet are still constantly feted as 'experts' without question. Worse, they are actually taken seriously by a large number of people.

In conclusion, having an excellent memory (when it suits me) - if I read every single book on a subject and remember the minutae of detail, being able to quote it at will - does that make me an 'expert' or a 'charlatan'? And on that basis, is the only difference between 'expert' and 'charlatan' a piece of paper in the form of some kind of certificate? Or is it some kind of tacit endorsement from another individual or organisation?

It seems to me that the world is largely run by people operating under the illusion of 'expertise' and nothing much else.

 

[Stu73]

You have made some excellent points there.

The established scientific/academic community is VERY conservative as a rule and have always looked condescendingly on the "laymen"

But where would we be without Heinrich Schliemann, Trevor Baylis, (deep breath, prepare for backlash) Erich von Däniken and the myriad others who were not "experts", yet added massively to their respective fields of study.

 

[ramonmercado]

Erich Von Daiken provided me with hours of joy and entertainment when I was a kid. I now file most of his work under fiction but he awakened the Fortean spirit in me.

 

[Stu73]

Erich Von Daiken provided me with hours of joy and entertainment when I was a kid. I now file most of his work under fiction but he awakened the Fortean spirit in me.

Can't argue with that your moderatorship

Even though EVD may have been misguided (crazy as a shit-house rat) at least he got us talking about the possibility of the ancient alien theory.

I wonder how many academical treaties have had the same effect on all of us plebs?

 

[drbastard]

This chimes with something I read today on the BBC website, that (Professor) Alice Roberts is now apparently an expert on the workings of the human brain as well as every other damn thing she decides to talk about. Amazing how having your mug on the TV all of the time makes you an expert on practically anything. FFS she'll be presenting Gardener's World next.

However being labelled an ‘expert’ is just something that gets put onto you by the public or the media. I doubt many would consider themselves as such, it’s just a convenient label.

Once when I was helping prepare a practical lecture, the lecturer running the course came in at the last minute (I’d been there 2 hours) and started frantically flicking through a textbook and asking me questions about what we were about to teach, like he didn’t have the first clue. About 20 minutes later I was surprised that he got up and went on to give an absolutely flawless lecture. No one would think he was as clueless as he was. I knew far more about the subject than him but the students preferred to hang on his every word. It taught me that 90% of it is bluff, confidence and arrogance.

I’m not bitter (much).

 

[Tunn11]

Try Brian J Ford's excellent book, "The cult of the expert." Hamish Hamilton 1982. I think you would agree with most of what he has to say

 

[PeniG]

"Expert" is what someone else calls you. I've known lots of experts (in birdwatching, at writing, at programming), not one of which didn't, when called that, shrug and remark that they were a long way from knowing everything.

For purposes of being called as an expert witness, you should be professionally proficient in the subject on which you are being questioned, with practical experience in the practical matters and teaching qualifications in academic ones. If you've been a professional plumber for twenty years and have a good reputation in the business, you should count as a qualified expert, should it be necessary to explain the qualities of a ball cock to a jury. If you're giving medical evidence, you should have worked with the condition described; if you're giving forensic evidence, you need to have examined and done any necessary procedures on the evidence in the case. If you're being called on to challenge the procedures used on the evidence, it is enough that you have extensive experience with the pitfalls in those procedures; it is not enough that you've read about them.

As for still being an expert after making a mistake - excuse me, what species do you think you're dealing with? "Expert" does not mean "elevated to a plane of expertise beyond all possibility of making a bad call." The experts I know have modesty in the face of the universe; they know that they do not and cannot and will not know everything there is to know about this subject. If they did, the subject would not be worth working in anymore. There's always more to know, anybody can make a mistake, interpretations are always subject to revision as more facts are discovered, and in the most interesting studies, there's areas which are in dispute. Ask two archeologists, get three opinions!

It is the job of the layman, in a jury or making medical decisions for her family or in any other capacity, to take the best opinions of the best-qualified people available, sift through them, compare all the disparate bits of information she has in the matter, and make her best judgement call based on that.

And, right or wrong, we all proceed from there.

 

[GNC]

If I was falsely imprisoned, I'd rather Shami Chakrabati pleaded my case than my local plumber. Similarly, if my toilet backed up I'd rather the plumber looked at it than Shami Chakrabati.

 

[David Plankton]

I thought I read somewhere that an expert was someone with 20,000 hours experience working in a particular field. A quick calculation tells me this is probably wrong - it was more like 7 years.

Don't ask me!

 

[Yithian]

Interesting thread.

My small contribution is that there's nothing wrong with dubbing people experts, but that it must constantly be borne in mind that expertise ordinarily only covers a very modest field. Even traditional academic subjects are far too broad for any but the most highly-educated to claim expertise in anything beyond one corner of them. To be an expert on "English Literature", for instance, is largely hyperbole; to be an expert on British poetry of the 1840s is much more plausible. A good friend, for instance, is a bona-fide expert on the sub-atomic structure and properties of diamond - you would literally be hard pushed to find anything within that narrow category of which he cannot give a near-comprehensive explanation. He might well be viewed as an expert in "Chemistry" by a layman, but that is only comparatively true and rather misleading. Many of the complaints Pornosonic voices stem from a mistaken assumption (or claim) of a wider field of expertise than an individual in fact possesses. A decent grounding and fluency in jargon can easily convince someone outside of your discipline that your depth of knowledge is substantially deeper than it really is and this will give your judgments undue weight until and unless challenged by a genuine expert.

 

[Cochise]

I thought I read somewhere that an expert was someone with 20,000 hours experience working in a particular field. A quick calculation tells me this is probably wrong - it was more like 7 years.

Don't ask me!

Reasonable. When I was gaining my particular expertise it was three years before you were allowed to touch a live system unsupervised, and 5 before you were considered qualified to do a project on your own. Now people are regarded as expert (or at least 'qualified') after a 6 week course, without any live experience at all. It's laughable.

 

[swedish3]

I know it's not exactly on topic but I feel it does illustrate a point.

I remember watching an Antiques Roadshow special about old and rare toys. A member of the public had brought a box full of original Star Wars toys in and the "expert" was going through them and giving the punter his knowledge on the subject.

Almost everything he said was wrong!! I knew this because I had my own rare and collectible toy store at the time.

It made me realise that just because the media portrays somebody as an expert this isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Cultjunky]

Much of this discussion seems to point at an expert being someone formally qualified in a tightly defined sphere of knowledge. Would anyone consider a layman type hobbyist to be an expert? I'm thinking along the lines of a person having a passion for astronomy rather than a stamp collector.

 

[ramonmercado]

Much of this discussion seems to point at an expert being someone formally qualified in a tightly defined sphere of knowledge. Would anyone consider a layman type hobbyist to be an expert? I'm thinking along the lines of a person having a passion for astronomy rather than a stamp collector.

There are some Forteans here who are experts in their sub-fields. Some like crypto-zoology or archaeology would require a certain scientific grounding even if they didn't have qualifications.

 

[rynner2]

An old phrase that's been about for many years is something like:

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing."

In other words, an expert is a specialist in a small area of knowledege, and deepening his knowledge means restricting the width of the subject studied.

 

[Yithian]

An old phrase that's been about for many years is something like:

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing."

In other words, an expert is a specialist in a small area of knowledege, and deepening his knowledge means restricting the width of the subject studied.

I recall Kenneth Williams spinning that one for comic effect on Parkinson.

 

[Analogue Boy]

It's worth bearing mind there's a sliding payscale at work here.
People think they need an expert but in reality, they aren't willing to pay for it.
After all, experts usually charge not only for their time but also for the wealth of experience and education leading up to the point where you call them in.

Of course, the bloke down the pub can sort out all the wrongs in the world and all he'll ask for is twenty quid for a few pints but....

 

[EnolaGaia]

An old phrase that's been about for many years is something like:

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing."

At least here in the States, that description has long been used for post-baccalaureate students - especially doctoral students - rather than 'expert' per se.

The longest-running American barb about 'expert' concerns its alleged etymology, claimed to be as follows:

ex - a has-been; someone unable to continue performing, and ...
spurt - a drip* under pressure

*Drip in this case meaning in the sense of the slang usage - (e.g.):

Slang. A tiresome or annoying person.
Slang. an inane, insipid person.
Slang. a boring or colorless person.

This gag came up many times back when I was an AI researcher (e.g., 'expert system'; 'expertise modeling'). My own corollary for 'expertise' added one more element:

Tease: The apparent offer of something the offeror cannot in fact deliver.

 

[Cochise]

Much of this discussion seems to point at an expert being someone formally qualified in a tightly defined sphere of knowledge. Would anyone consider a layman type hobbyist to be an expert? I'm thinking along the lines of a person having a passion for astronomy rather than a stamp collector.

Yes, of course. Sometimes someone with an amateur enthusiasm can be a tremendous expert. You don't always end up in the career you want to be , and sometimes other considerations such as security of employment means that people ending up working in careers other than their area of expertise.

It's less likely in some areas, though, because to become an expert in, say, network communications or oil pipelines requires access to and experience of large-scale systems that an amateur won't get.

 

[Monstrosa]

A guy I used to work with has written several well received books on astronomy, he may have an OU degree but he certainly hasn't been to Uni that I know of.

 

[rynner2]

A guy I used to work with has written several well received books on astronomy, he may have an OU degree but he certainly hasn't been to Uni that I know of.

Which reminds me of Patrick Moore, who 'rejected a grant to study at the University of Cambridge, citing a wish to "stand on my own two feet"'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore

Moore was president of the British Astronomical Association, co-founder and president of the Society for Popular Astronomy (SPA), author of over 70 books on astronomy, and presenter of the world's longest-running television series with the same original presenter, the BBC's The Sky at Night. As an amateur astronomer,[6] he became known as a specialist in Moon observation and for creating the Caldwell catalogue.

Some amateur! Makes most of the rest of us look like - well - amateurs!

 

[Analogue Boy]

By the way... If someone is looking for an expert on Forteana, you should really speak to me.

I can warn you off Ouija, tell you all about orbs, recite a hilarious duologue with my doppelganger who will juggle fiery shrunken heads while the whole scene shifts to an imperceptible yet uncomfortable degree.

 

[GNC]

I'm not an expert, but I am a so-called expert, a growing area of specialisation.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I am an expert on So-Called experts.
So I'd like to add you to 'So-CalledLinkup' where people with dubious expertise get a go running major companies. Previous successes in our members list include the head of Coop bank, key management personnel from Tesco, a professor of phonobendology at Apple and Common Sense advisor at Westminster.